I can see a bunch of things that don’t align with any primary sources I’ve seen. And even if the response looks AI generated
Sure but reliability and ability to achieve said specs are not modeled in game Gaijin uses what is stated for all vehicles basically across the board where possible, with few exceptions.
It was to be fitted with both RF and IR jammers, Note below listed ALQ-136, -144 & M-130, and later ALQ-211(V)3 & -212 systems.
Sure, but as above relative to other systems with known performance is provided as reference so things can be estimated in said absence or based on abstracted data based on systems implemented in game.
Where is the extra ammo coming from? As far as i know there was no gunpod or extended ammo bay planned.
A lot of heli are suffering because “Bad” missile and only a few get FnF missile. And MMW radar missile are not the answer. USA literally don’t have a better missile. They have two options 1 have about the same range as missile in game and was cancel and another its still on test fase.
Also i love how Bias post muh 1000000 times RCS than X. When in reality it only reduce the detection range 1/4 of a normal heli. So if a X heli can be detect by radar at 100km this thing its detectable at 25km.
Biased people don’t realize that not only this thing fail. But also much newer project like Invictus also fail.
If these people have read anything about RCS they would know that this won’t work. Even the frontal arc it have a lot of gaps and surface that lower it RCS. But they haven’t and only come here posting pr stuff.
Why? They could be implemented the same way as IIR missiles since MMW blocking smoke formulations do exist and including it in the generic mix seems fair for game balancing purposes
The AGM-179, or -176 is right there, For the Comanche sure, it’s limited to the hellfire but the AH- 58 / -64s do have options, and the AH-1Z has more exotic options as well.
Source?
Not in any way related to the underlying technical concepts, but more on the political side of things and that in the late 90’s early 2000’s a land war in Europe which the Comanche was tailored specifically for became much less likely and so could no longer justify ongoing costs, where pressing need for funding appeared in other areas which curtailed the project.
Certainly doesn’t look PR related at all, does it?
In part because gaijin in their infinite wisdom thought the pilot was actually in the back while making the model. However, come dev it got reported that the pilot is up front and they had to panic develop the actual pilot seat.
This is why the gunner’s rear seat model is so unusually detailed, even if low rez.
it would be amazing if the pilot and gunner’s seat’s were operable. Will be pretty handy especially for sim players. Pilot focusing on flying and RWR. Gunner seat for if u have a good spot u wanna engage and can operate from that
Im so sick of this bs, one day they say “potential capability is enough for a feature to be added” then the other they say “was not implemented so wont be added” Like wtf is your standard then??
Thought immediately after making the report that they would do it and here we are.
The thing is though both cockpits are near enough identical to each other, the only noticeable difference is the lack of a keyboard for the gunner, so I don’t know why but instead of just finishing the cockpit why they decided to give up on it.
But honestly how they have handled the Comanche is appalling. No IRCM, no countermeasures, cut the amount of Stingers in half, only AGM-114B which left US service before the Comanche was built, gun can’t be stowed, no armour, had to fight for an RWR and they gave up on the report for a better RWR too. Infact all the outstanding dev reports have just been abandoned.
I would say its surprising but that would be a complete lie.
We don’t know, we know there was one at very least planned (ALQ-144(V)3 & ALQ-144A ). Similarly to the one that the AH-64A(+) or -64D could optionally take mounted as part of the Longbow program.
So it was designed and a mount was planned but I don’t know if it was mounted to one of the Flight test airframes, or to one of the partially completed airframes at the time of the program being spun down.
It should at a minimum actually meet the precedent threshold that set by the YTak-141’s IRST blister that was never mounted to an airframe.
